This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about permissions/licensing, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com

Canada should sign UN arms trade treaty

If the U.S. can sign treaty to prevent conventional weapons falling into the wrong hands, why can't Canada?

More than 650 million small arms have become the lifeblood of modern conflicts. They have a horrific impact in places like the Congo, facilitating mass atrocities, crippling economies and undermining peacebuilding efforts. (ERIC FEFERBERG / AFP/GETTY IMAGES file photo)

By Roméo DallaireJonah Kanter

Thu., Oct. 10, 2013

As world leaders gathered in New York for the recent UN General Assembly meeting, Syria, Iran and weapons of mass destruction dominated the discourse. But amidst all the activity, the United States took the welcomed if unexpected step of signing the Arms Trade Treaty, which, through trade regulation, seeks to prevent conventional weapons from falling into the hands of would-be human rights violators around the world.

First of all, part of the treaty’s preamble — inserted at Canada’s insistence no less — clearly affirms “the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law.” The UN Office for Disarmament Affairs also stated unequivocally that the treaty will not “interfere with the domestic arms trade and the way a country regulates civilian possession.” Finally, the suggestion that somehow this treaty will resurrect the Canadian long-gun registry is nothing more than gun lobby hyperbole.

So why on earth must we conduct seemingly endless consultations? If the Americans — with their constitutional right to bear arms and ever more powerful gun lobby — can do the right thing, then what’s stopping the Canadian government, if not just cynical domestic politics or outright stubbornness?

Article Continued Below

The Arms Trade Treaty isn’t a trick; it’s a mass atrocity prevention measure. As Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan put it recently, human suffering today is mainly sustained by the “unfettered access [of] non-state actors to illicit smart arms and light weapons.” He added, “For us in Africa, these are the weapons of mass destruction.” Indeed, as I remember all too vividly, it was not a nuclear weapon that killed 800,000 people in Rwanda; it was AK-47s and machetes.

And yet we live in a world where the trade of bananas is more tightly regulated than the trade of arms, which remain cheaply available anywhere, anytime to those who wish to conduct an armed conflict. This is due in part to the legacy of the Cold War during which both sides sold or provided huge arsenals to so-called allies in the developing world. When the Cold War ended and the Eastern Bloc collapsed, many more weapons found their way onto the international arms market. And since, developed nations, especially the permanent members of the UN Security Council, have continued to manufacture new weapons while selling off the old ones in order to avoid wasting public assets.

As a result, today more than 650 million small arms, including pistols, assault rifles, light machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, are spread out around the world. They have become the very lifeblood of modern conflicts. In countries such as Syria, Libya, Sudan and the Congo, UN monitors have reported on the horrific impact of these trafficking networks, which not only fuel conflict and facilitate mass atrocities, but also cripple economies and undermine peacebuilding efforts.

Clearly, something must be done to mitigate the international free-for-all in conventional weapons, and the Arms Trade Treaty is a long overdue step in that direction.

However, some believe that this business is too big for a middle power such as Canada; that in signing the treaty our impact would be minimal, so why worry about it? Simply put, our decision to delay signing only furthers our own isolation from the UN, other key institutions and the international community at large.

Not long ago, Canada played a leadership role on issues like this, bringing innovative thinking, demonstrating guts and taking risks. Indeed, it was largely a result of our leadership that new ideas such as the Responsibility to Protect and the International Criminal Court emerged. Before we were a bridge between the major powers and developing countries; now we neither lead nor follow.

As we begin a new parliamentary session next week, our message to the Canadian government is clear: find the strength of character and conviction needed to change course, sign the treaty and re-assume Canada’s place in the world as a leading middle power.

More from the Toronto Star & Partners

LOADING

Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or distribution of this content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited and/or its licensors. To order copies of Toronto Star articles, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com